Criticizing the Oneness of Transcendental Idealism

Go to page

I prefer psychical research to beliefs. To me it seems that your pessimism clouds your judgement. Healthy skepticism is of course better than blind belief, but when there is lots of good evidence, and most importantly, convergence of evidence, it is certainly not mere wishful thinking. Some of the cases mentioned in that blog post may not have been investigated as thoroughly as the better cases, but these too are additional evidence for personal survival after death. Other cases of mediumship, reincarnation, OBEs and NDEs also suggest that the individuality is retained. It is a matter of consilience.

The more I read what you indicated, the more it makes me sense that they are all lies.

They are blatant brazen lies.

Later if I have free time I will write to explain this. For now, I just say that those people who claimed "evidence" are insane, they haven't found enough amount of information, yet they have made "big claims" which should have been taken extremely seriously.

They also weirdly shew no interest to further find and investigate the experience they encountered. When they encountered anyone in their experiences, God, Jesus, angels, deceased ones, "their future child waiting to be born"...., they didn't even care about asking them some meaningful questions.

For my lousy life, I will need many time to explain, I just only say for now that, by my life experience, I sense whoever (if there is any) sent us human onto earth, they are not loving or some good thing, they are actually making biological experiment on human species with cruelty and indifference the same as we human makes experiment on animals.

I prefer psychical research to beliefs. To me it seems that your pessimism clouds your judgement. Healthy skepticism is of course better than blind belief, but when there is lots of good evidence, and most importantly, convergence of evidence, it is certainly not mere wishful thinking. Some of the cases mentioned in that blog post may not have been investigated as thoroughly as the better cases, but these too are additional evidence for personal survival after death. Other cases of mediumship, reincarnation, OBEs and NDEs also suggest that the individuality is retained. It is a matter of consilience.

We can identify a person, by, and only by 2 means:
1, what he/she looks like.
2, his/her memories.

Let us face to this fact: even if our "self" is not hard wired bound to this physical body we have, and we will not disappear after our body dies, and there is afterlife, even if all these are true, this physical body we have in this current mundane life of us, still serves as a very very very very important indication and manifestation of "who we are" and "what we look like".

Yeah, I have the full brazenness to say, we identify, we recognize, we choose to like or dislike a person, heavily by what "his/her physical body" looks like. Of course, our "self" can't be equal to "what our physical body (I mean including visage, facial features, appearances....) looks like". People's physical body's appearances can be heavily changed or damaged by illness, accidents, plastic surgeries, growing, genome mutation, biological evolutions, etcetera. People's whole body can be changed or even lost drastically but they are still "themselves".

But, you will still identify them by some subtle aspects about their body, like their voices, way of speaking talking chatting, accents, temperament, attitude, temper, sentiment, breath, odor, hormone, tiny gesture posture and casual motions.... Hey, I do not have that large English vocabulary, since English language is not my mother tongue and I'm still learning it. But guess you know what I mean by what I say "many subtle aspects", right? And these "subtle aspects" are still heavily influenced and determined by our genome and physical bodies.

So? So this: we rely a person's physical body to identify him/her, because a person's physical body gives us astronomically large amount of information to help us distinguish him/her from another people. Sometimes, these astronomically large amount of information are received not by our surface brains sober thoughts or sensory organs, but by our biological process underlying brain basis activities and subconsciousness.

If all these visual, aural, odor, smell, taste, touch senses we received from a person's physical body fail to help us identify who he/she is, then there is another method: his/her memories. We could talk to him/her, ask him/her questions and listen to what he/she would say, then judge his/her identity from what he/she remembers.

That is what I mean, we can, and only can identify a person's identity by 2 means:
1, what he/she looks like.
2, his/her memories.

If you collect no information about a person's appearances, nor have you checked his/her memories, how could you identity who he/she is? "Some spiritual traits"? Sorry, we don't know any information about the empty hollow drab meaningless thingy as "spiritual traits". Physical world gives us so large amount of information, tells us and teaches us so many things, what about the so-called "spiritual realm"? So far, we have received zero information about it and it tells us and teaches us nothing at all. If you say "love", sorry, physical world teaches us about love, not a spiritual realm. And all things people have told about spiritual realm are borrowed from physical world and there is nothing completely new we can see from those "spiritual realm stories".

If you say, people still exist after bodily death, deceased people are in a non-physical realm, and continue being existent in some other side, then how could we identify them? Do they have appearance which resembles their physical body in their latest earthly life? If so, how many details their "spiritual body" has? And in what proportion their "spiritual body" is the same as their "physical body"? In what age of their physical body? Does their spiritual body have textures, tissues, winkles, veins, vapors....? Look, remember I lack English vocabulary and I'm not a human science professor. I mean here the words queue should be much longer than what I have written. Shouldn't these questions have an answer? What those so-called experiencers ever told us or tried to find the answers themselves?

If people on the other side do have some "spiritual traits" which are irrelevant to their physical body on earth, to make us be able to identify them, these "spiritual traits" should contain much larger amount of information than all the amount of information their once possessed physical body can reveal and convey, not less. What information the so-called experiencers have told us? What information they have even tried to glean and further investigate by themselves? The most insane experiencers are those who purposefully immerse themselves into "a weird loving (unconditional if you don't mind me to add) bubble". No, sane people don't do this, sane people will simply try to further observe and collect more and more amount of information and investigate clearly what happened to them and the people they seem to have sensed and remembered they met in their experiences. And sane people will ask questions, as more as they are allowed, to collect as much amount of information as they can.

So, people who claimed they met people on the other side (in a nde, obe, near life experience.... whatever), and who are still sane, definitely will not make reckless conclusions immediately, a sane and normal person will simply try to collect information to firstly identity who the people they met exactly. The experiencer should OBSERVE and ASK QUESTIONS, to check his/her appearance (physical or spiritual), to check his/her memories, in a word, to glean sufficient amount of information, WITH CAUTION AND VIGILANCE AND PRUDENCE.

Look, there were so many so-called experiencers, who made very quick conclusions about many things, don't you feel strange?
They didn't not even wish to observe more, ask more questions, interact more with whoever they claim they met in their experience, don't you feel strange about this?

I still have many things to say but I do not have time left for now, maybe sometime later.

But please could someone who is sane to answer my questions, doesn't anyone of you feel this is a so grotesque, weird phenomenon?

Evidence of an afterlife???? I have full brazenness to say, and I feel there is no need for politeness etiquette for fancy words under situation of discussing this severely sinister phenomenon, that these are not evidence of an afterlife, but an evidence of a funny conspiracy or physiological catastrophe of human species. Why people do not even CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH and being so indifferent, careless, reckless, thoughtless, imprudent, irresponsible, lack of caution and vigilance....????

Those experiencers you mentioned, nders, obers, near life experiencers, reincarnation rememberers, paranormal contacts, etcetera, not only tell us almost nothing, but also, it seems they themselves don't care about any truth, they do not care about thoroughly observing and asking questions when they encountered whoever they believe that was, they are insane and all what they said are all lies. They gleaned almost zero amount of information and they make many "big hollow drab meaningless claims". They claim everything when they have found nothing.

Those experiencers you mentioned, nders, obers, near life experiencers, reincarnation rememberers, paranormal contacts, etcetera, not only tell us almost nothing, but also, it seems they themselves don't care about any truth, they do not care about thoroughly observing and asking questions when they encountered whoever they believe that was, they are insane and all what they said are all lies. They gleaned almost zero amount of information and they make many "big hollow drab meaningless claims". They claim everything when they have found nothing.

We want information, large amount of information, not those claims, they claim this, claim that, but they didn't ever provide sufficient amount of information.

All the information they "told" us, are easily reproduced by using our physical world memories, and also their tellings contain completely illogical anomalies.

Later I will take an example of an experience narration, criticize it sentence by sentence to demonstrate why they are insane by "they provide scarce amount of information but they make too many big claims".

Do you think the truth is not important? Do you really believe that those people said about their nde, obe, pre life memories, alien contacts, paranormal experiences, etc?

Listen, listen to me, please, wake up, WE ONLY BELIEVE IN LARGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, if they provide almost none information, but they seem to indulge and revel in making many "big claims", there must be something wrong behind this weird phenomenon.

"A bearded man sitting on a cloud" is a silly, old fashioned, blatant brazen lie told by ancient frauds, created by their hollow, drab, and stupid imagination, but they were proud about their imagination at their times, because some other people in their times were not able to even imagine a bearded man sitting on a cloud. Funny that we now are in 21st century and there are still people believing in such a kind of simple and unimaginative lie.

"A bearded man sitting on a cloud" is like a lie used for cheating little kid.
"Those narrations about paranormal experiences" are like lies used for cheating adult.

Can we say, lies used to cheating adult are wiser, or more profound, or more meaningful, than the lies used to fool little kids?
No, lies are all stupid and meaningless, there is no degree or comparison of a lie's "wisdom, intellect, or meaningfulness".

The problem you have is not with truth, but with placing your own interpretation of reality as the absolute truth and everyone else's interpretation as lies. That is an insult to everyone. Are you surprised that there is so little approval for your perspective when you hurl abuse at us all, and elevate yourself to some godlike-status.

Yes, your views are important, but they don't merit the placing of them as better than everyone else's views.

I rather side with Typoz here. Your statements are remarkably similar to those of hellfire preachers, who try to tell others that they are deliberately evading a truth that they do not like - unless they embrace some particular faith.

Typoz, I don't know whether you have noticed two things, if not, I need to explain to you:

First, have you noticed that what I said is not towards you, I didn't talk those words to you and I didn't mention you. I'm sorry that I didn't keep in mind those posts might be seen by you and you might consider those be "insult" when I used the word "lie", I'm terribly sorry on that and I apologize to you, to everyone who may feel that's "insult". Yeah, I admit that those posts were raised by my conversation with Raimo, but I didn't even mean to speak those sentences specifically to Raimo or any specific person. I just consider there might be someone, some indefinite one who would read those posts later in the future and make some intelligent comments on them.

Second, hey, listen, dear Typoz, I want you to notice one thing if you haven't, please, this is very very important. You see, you were talking about people's feeling, for example, what I said might let you or some people feel "insult", and you also consider I may feel "hurt" or "harm" by your words, so you explain you didn't mean them to me, you are very kind, you are kind to me, you consider for many people who may read posts on this forum or any posts in this world, you concern for them and you vindicate for them. None of them should be insulted by a person like me. I repeat, you are very kind, to me, to many people, you are a kind man. I'm very grateful that you deign to "help" me realize my impoliteness and at same time you also try to heed not harming my feelings.

Dear Typoz, listen, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S FEELING, WHAT WORDS MIGHT MAKE THEM FEEL INSULTED, WHAT WORDS MIGHT MAKE THEM FEEL HURTED, HARMED, WHAT WORDS MIGHT MAKE THEM FEEL GOOD, and Raimo were making jokes, and escaping from further discussing on the truth. But I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TRUTH, I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE MIGHT FEEL OR JOKES OR THAT I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID OR I DISLIKE WHAT YOU SAID, INSTEAD, I WERE TALKING ABOUT TRUTH.

And when I'm talking about truth, I don't mean to or notice I'm "insulting" anyone, and anyone may hurt me, harm me, insult me, damn me, curse me, abuse me, Raimo said I was trolling, do I have a tiniest mind on that? No, I didn't, I just feel funny, confusing, and don't understand, where the focus people are putting attention on? Focusing on what people may feel? What they themselves may feel? What they like to hear, they dislike to hear? Hey, it is the truth which is important, not the concerns for anyone may feel bad or good. Don't waste time on those things, they are not important at all. Let us focus on talking about the truth.

Dear Typoz, how could you harm me by your words? You don't need to concern for me on that, although I feel grateful and I feel myself is mean and inferior if you do so. But I do not put too much concerns on this matter. Also I want no approval like that you thought I might pursue. You know why? When we are talking about truth, nothing compares with the importance of truth, there is no time to waste on those irrelevant to trying to find the truth. WE SHOULD FOCUS ON TRUTH, NOT PEOPLE'S FEELING OR MEANINGLESS JOKES. Please feel free to say anything to me but I will only pay attention on sentences relevant to trying to find the truth, not people's feeling or meaningless jokes.

In many occasions I do mind the art of talking, the etiquette and politeness when getting along with people, heed what the words I choose may cause what feeling on the audience, avoid harming or offending people, including in some indirect or subtle ways, say some fancy, sweet words, placebo, be nice and polite, and what what what what, but only when I do not focus on talking about the truth. When I'm talking about the truth, my mind does't have space for those trivial concerns.

You might say it is part of the truth that people may feel uncomfortable on what I said, yeah, it is true, but what is more important is the truth behind all the paranormal phenomena people claimed around the world, let's focus on this OK? Please don't swerve the discussion topic towards people's feeling, what they like or not like to hear, and the meaningless jokes.

The next is that somebody might say: "What truth this damn tarantulanebula is talking about? How could he think he has the right to comment on something he knows nothing of? He is not talking about any truth, instead, he is trolling which is much much more meaningless than the jokes."

I will speak again what the "truth" I'm talking about, and, again, dear Typoz, not towards you or Raimo or any other specific person, just if there will be someone later in the future will see what I mean and make some intelligent comments on them.

Here is the "truth" I'm talking about:
All the asserters of paranormal phenomenon experiences, they are insane on a common trait: they seem to have lost the ability of, or the interest on, further asking questions and further investigating the things(places and persons) they claimed they have encountered.

When a sane person visits that kind of otherworldly place, meets "some persons" under that situation, the first reactions should include:
1, vigilant.
2, curious.
3, extremely highly concerns for the nature of that place and the identity genuineness of those persons(or angels whatever) and their conditions.
4, to have questions in mind and to ask those questions to anyone who may receive and understand those questions.
5, further observing, investigating, with vigilance, curiosity all along the experience.

The above is too verbose, let us make a short summary:
They should ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask questions.

But they didn't. When they had those experiences, they seemed to have lost the ability of, or the interest on, further asking questions. They seemed to trust everything they superficially saw, make quick and big assertions, feel good for no reason, and, by quoting their original words: "understand everything". But they tell almost zero amount of information, they provide nothing then assert everything, isn't it strange?

Some experiencers said, they encountered someone in their experience, they immediately recognized that is Jesus. Whenever I saw this kind of narration, I know this narrator is going to say some nonsense. You didn't ask him to confirm that he is Jesus, right? Why you didn't ask him anything? If you just asked him something, that would not be difficult and would offend no one, why you just couldn't ask him one or few questions? Why not ask him whether the stories in the Bible are all true? Why not ask him whether the modern churches serve God's purpose in the correct way? Why not ask him what he is doing on the other side? Why not ask him many many things about his life, about the experiencer's life, about the physical world, about the spiritual world? Why not? It would not be a difficult thing and would offend no one if the experiencers did ask one or few questions. But they didn't ask much questions, why?

If a sane person encountered deceased beloved ones, he/she should express the following concerns and behaviors:
1, doubt the identity of who he "feel might be someone", so the experiencer would try everything to confirm its identity, the attempts definitely include asking questions, asking questions, asking questions, asking questions.
2, even if the experiencer were quite sure about the identity of who he encountered, the experiencer would keep asking tons of questions, some will be in a frantic way, some will be relatively calmer. Imagine if your daughter went to a foreign country, especially one of those unfamiliar and mysterious to you, to spend 4 years college educations there. And you went to that country to meet your daughter first time since you departed for 3 years, what you would do in the first face to face contact with your daughter? Would you two just be watching each other with smiling? Wouldn't you feel that would be weird and silly? You wouldn't talk to each other? You were not going to ask whether she were OK there? You wouldn't concern whether your daughter had been accustomed to the food, weather, social traditions, social welfare, social security, people relationships, clothes, ....(here goes a queue of infinite aspects for which I do not have vocabulary) there? YOU WOULDN'T ASK SOME QUESTIONS TO EACH OTHER, INSTEAD, JUST KEEP WATCHING EACH OTHER AND SMILING AND NONE OF YOU FEEL IT WOULD BE WEIRD AND SILLY?
3, talk about future, what each of you will encounter and face and need to do in the future.

You see what those experiencers did when they encountered deceased beloved ones: they did no much interactions and virtually asked no questions to each other. Huh? Is it a normal reaction sane people would do under that situation?

When a sane person visits an unknown and mysterious place, the first reaction shouldn't be trusting everything, understanding everything, feeling good, instead, the first reaction should be being extremely vigilant, curious, and asking questions. Imagine what a trained soldier would react if he/she enters an unknown region? Only if the experiencers would have collected astronomically large amount of information, he/she would be released and "trusting, understanding, feeling good", the astronomically large amount of information should include:
1, have visited many places in the other world, investigated the spacial temporal basis there.
2, have encountered and communicated with many persons(or conscious existences using words precisely) in the other world, knowing they are living(or being existent) well there and they are benevolent.
3, have asked large amount of questions and got large amount of answers.

In a word, only if the experiencers would have collected astronomically large amount of information, should he/she be able to say "he/she have known something in that world and indeed encountered someone there".

You see what information those experiencers have collected? They didn't even have the interest or ability to ask a few questions, yet they assert and insist they encountered who and who and who and who and the other world or heaven is real.

Asking a few question is not a difficult thing to do and would hurt no one if those experiencers did encounter anyone they insisted they have encountered during their experiences. But they seem to refrain from, or, I'm not sure, dread about asking any questions, yet, they still insist on asserting hollow, irresponsible, indifferent big assertions, like, they encountered Jesus, God, deceased beloved ones, they understand everything, time doesn't exist, and so on, and so on.

I will take another example, keep it short, in one story, the experiencer narrated when she was a child once she followed her siblings to a play field, and on her way she felt there were three conscious existences stopped her by using an invisible wall, then shortly after a dog bit her sister. Later she thought about the experience and she sensed those three otherworldly conscious existences were deliberately saving herself from being bit by that dog to death, because they knew if it were going to be her sister to be bitten, her sister would only receive a small not lethal injury. The experiencer then knew those power saved her for a purpose and she had a mission to live on earth although she didn't exactly know what it is. The first time I read her story, I felt it was written very sane, sober, detailed, genuine, real, touching, moving. I had not much doubt that she really had that paranormal experience and she told what she really experienced in the most sincere and honest way a person can achieve. But, some days later when I rethought about that story, I found one thing very very strange:

If those three invisible figures(otherworldly conscious existences) meant to save this experiencer's life from that fierce dog's bite, why didn't they put an invisible wall around that dog to prevent it from running to her sister? Why let her sister to be bitten, though not lethal? Wouldn't it be better if they just put that invisible wall around that dog and no one would have been hurt?

And, listen, everyone who would deign to read my poor written post, seeking for truth as I said what my purpose has always been, without any other concerns(like for my choice of word would make someone feel "insult" or bad and then retaliate back to me to abuse me or "help" me, please don't swerve the topic which is much much more important than those trivial little feelings people might feel for when I'm talking about the bloody true questions for seeking truth), wake up and listen, buddy!!!!:

And, even if those three invisible figures did have an extremely good reason to arrange that event to have happened, they deliberately stopped the experiencer, who was an eight years old girl from being bitten by that mad dog, because they are so powerful and higher existent they knew the experiencer would be dead, instead they had an extremely good reason to let her sister to be bitten, and they also knew her sister would be fine, even if so, even if so, even if so, even if so, there is still one weird question:

WHY FOR SEVERAL DECADES, WHEN THE EXPERIENCER RECALLED THAT EVENT, SHE HAD NEVER FELT STRANGE ABOUT WHY THOSE THREE CONSCIOUS EXISTENCES DIDN'T JUST PUT THAT INVISIBLE WALL AROUND THAT DOG AND THEN NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN HURT, AND THE EXPERIENCER NEVER ASKED THIS QUESTION, NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS QUESTION, NEVER HOLD THIS QUESTION IN HER OWN MIND?

This is only one example of many many. Why those paranormal experiencers seem to be unable or indifferent on further rethinking, investigating, asking questions about, the unexplained and abnormal part of the so called experiences they "believed" they really have experienced? If it is not lying to themselves, a trick played by some mental anomaly, then what it is?

You ask questions, it would not be a difficult thing to do and would not hurt anyone, you ask questions and:
1, you collect 20% amount of information, then you make 20% certainty on what you feel you had an experience of another world and met whoever you deem it is there, and no one will doubt you.
2, you collect 40% amount of information, then you make 40% certainty on what you feel you had an experience of another world and met whoever you deem it is there, and no one will doubt you.
3, you collect 60% amount of information, then you make 60% certainty on what you feel you had an experience of another world and met whoever you deem it is there, and no one will doubt you.

But you have collected only zero amount of information and then you assert with 100% certainty everything about this world like God, Jesus, someone, time doesn't exist, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Why do not ask any questions if you encounter God, Jesus, whoever? Why? Why do not try to find some amount of information for confirm the truth? Is the truth not important to you? Instead, is it more important what people might feel when they read the words which is offending or sweet they like to hear or dislike to hear or the meaningless jokes, much much more important than the truth?

Wake up people, please, wake up, in many place, many occasions, we talk about things just trying to make each other feel good, or partially for it. But when we talking about the truth behind the reason of the insanity why people who assert they had paranormal experiences but they never asked some decent amount of questions, there is no time or room for other concerns, let us face this weird insanity, at least sometimes, it must have an explanation, let us not escape and face the truth behind the mental anomaly why those experiencers never ask questions or have questions in their mind as if seeking for truth is a burden and bother so better off trying to keep being deluded and ignorant.

Hey, people, please, wake up, wake up and listen to me, I mean no insult or offense to anyone, but truth is truth and truth is more important to all of us than "insult" or "not insult" or something, and truth is much much more important than that anyone might like to hear something or might dislike to hear some other things or the politeness when talking about some topics or to make yourself, themselves or myself feel good and heed to pay attention to not insult someone by avoiding using bitter epithet like "lie". Let us to say some fancy sweet words in some other places at some other times, now here at this very moment let us talk some bloody truth OK? Please please please please. Say I'm trolling and abuse me in any way you like, I don't care, but please let us at least talk about truth for at least a little while OK?

As I previously mentioned, in that story, the narrator told us her story in a very detailed, sane, sober, touching, moving way of writing, I appreciate her very much for that she shared her experience with us for the good of someone of us who may need to hear her story and find some insight about what is actually going on in this world. Also I have almost no doubt that the narrator has told her story in the most sincere and honest way I have ever seen and the most human can hold to the loyalty to the truth.

She said three invisible beings put an invisible wall around her to prevent her from being bitten by that fierce dog. That resulted in that the dog which would have been going to bite the narrator to death ran to her sister instead in the actually happened event and bit her but caused not very severe injury and left no psychological trauma in her sister. Those three invisible beings were friendly and they deliberately saved the narrator from being killed for a purpose and had a plan for the narrator to live on earth to fulfill her mission which still remains unknown and mysterious.

But, there is one thing very very weird inside of the whole story. Why those three beings didn't put that invisible wall around that mad dog instead of around the narrator, then no one would have been hurt? This is actually not strange, I can imagine those three beings may have a good reason for doing what they actually did. What is very weird is why the narrator NEVER ASKED THIS QUESTION?

I can imagine the reason why those three invisible beings indulged the mad dog to bite the narrator's sister, when they probably have sufficient power or methods to prevent that from happening:
1, if the dog hadn't bitten the narrator's sister, it would bite the narrator in some other times anyway and would cause the narrator to have died, those three invisible beings couldn't prevent this from happening so what they actually did was the only way to save the narrator's life.
2, having put that invisible wall around that mad dog would have caused some chain effects and consequences to ensue, and still finally ruin to disturb their plan. Like, some other extraterrestrial observers might have noticed that dog's weird behavior of keeping bumping the air like as if bumping against some invisible wall and spotted those three invisible beings and then did some disturbance in their plan in a complex way we human won't be able to understand.

I'm not that imaginative as if I'm a popular novelist, I believe someone else can imagine one hundred more possible reasons behind that those three invisible beings didn't put that invisible wall around that mad dog to protect both the narrator and her sister. But this doesn't explain why the narrator NEVER ASKED THIS QUESTION OR HAD THIS QUESTION IN HER OWN MIND. She seems having no strong desire to ask further questions, to investigate further what actually is going on behind many asserted paranormal experiences around the world, and to confirm those three invisible beings are really as benevolent, friendly and mean to protect her and guide her as in the same way she always thought they are in.

The above is only one of many many stories I want to mention but I do not have that much time currently.

If you read more and more stories, and think about them more and more, think deeper and deeper, you will find most of those asserted paranormal experiencers seem to have no ability of, or interest in asking questions and investigating further on their experiences, when there should always be bloody motivations to do so.

One reason is definitely they are actually not sure about what they think they are sure. So a sane person will try everything at any cost to ask questions whenever they can and investigate further whenever they have the means. For example, if they believe they have met their deceased beloved ones, are they sure those people are OK in the other world? Why never asked several questions to them?

Those experiencers just trust everything they believe they have seen in their experience, and feel good. This is very weird because by this attitude they make irresponsible perfunctory hollowly big assertions(e.g. "I understand everything"), be indifferent to whether the beings they believe they have encountered in their experiences are really living well in whatever other world.

Just asking several questions is not a difficult thing to do, and would hurt no one, why those experiencers more or less escape from asking questions?

You see, people created a bloodily fresh brand new religion New Agers.

Raimo said I'm trolling or ignorant. Actually if you say I'm a pig hog boar swine I wouldn't mind and I wouldn't hate you.

Hey people, wake up wake up, you did this, you did that, good job and you are great. But couldn't you do one thing more? One thing which is simpler than the ones I mentioned above: ask a few questions when you or anyone who claims had paranormal experiences encounter whoever from the other side.

Is it so difficult? Is it guilt? Is it troublesome? Is it shameful? Is it impolite?

They said they encountered Jesus or who or who or who or who, asked zero meaningful question to him/her, talked nothing with him/her, cared about nothing happening there, concerned nothing for what they are doing there.

OK, I'm sorry, asking a few questions to whoever they said they encountered in their experiences would need an arduous job of moving their lips and the whole sets of conjoining nerves and muscles, which could exhaust all their strength and potentially harm their health or spirit.

Wait, didn't they say they didn't need to speak, instead they communicated telepathically there? And whenever they had any thought or question, beings in there would have already known before they try to tell them?

So? They didn't even try to deign to communicate telepathically, and they just kept watching each other and smiling to each other during the whole experience?